Global Warming & the Flood

okay. It's not heat that rises...it's hot air. Well, really, it's hotter air rises in relation to cooler air, I imagine.

The problem is that the scenario you have set up is basically a steam boiler. A Pressure Cooker. There is no cooler air, it's all superheated.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

That's true. But this is a global scale - we aren't talking about heat differentials, we are talking about massive amounts of heat being added to the entire atmosphere. Bizzare weather would likely ensue from the eventual formation of convection cells, but the point is that heat will remain in the atmosphere. It doesn't go away, and by mixing with the colder air, the entire atmosphere heats up. With a heat source this strong acting over the entire planet for 40 days straight, global temperatures would skyrocket.For reference: 234 degrees Celsius is 453 degrees Fahrenheit. The entire planet would be hot enough to literally cook every living thing on the planet.If the rain issue is settled, shall we move on then to the fountains themselves?

Hi Rahvin,Sorry about the long absence. Been workin' lots. LOTS!Anyways. As I said before, I generally go with the basic ideas proposed by a fellow named Walt Brown.Let's see if I can sum up the basic idea (from memory...and I read his book long ago). Sandwiched between what is now the oceanic crust and what used to be the outer crust (the remains of which makes the present continents) was a layer of water. The outer crust was supported not only by the water but probably also by "columns" which rested on the "oceanic" crust (the basalt?).According to Walt's idea, the outer crust split and the outer crust acted on the water layer in hydraulic fashion (gravity being the force). He proposes that THIS is the "fountains of the deep" referred to in Genesis. This forced the water out with tremendous pressure and quickly eroded away the split area...also likely blowing away ("blow away" as in explosion) large portions of the outer crust, which pelted the moon and is the origin of our solar system's comets -- according to the idea, at least.I'm sure that most here find it laughable, and I hope you and they will stick to examining the idea of the fountains of the deep and heat and not get bogged down in stuff about comets or whatever.At any rate, one thing I don't recall Walt discussing is the idea of how the fountain would affect the earth's motions.So, regarding such fountains and the tremendous energy that would have been present in them, I say the energy would, for the most part, stay kinetic. Any rocks "blown away" into space would carry the kinetic energy out of the earth system. I also believe, that if such a "fountain" existed, it would have actually moved the earth in the opposite direction the same way a jet orifice moves spaceships -- permanently giving the earth a new orbit.How exactly I dont know. Maybe it moved the earth closer to the sun, or sped the earth up along its original orbit path. I say this because there is evidence that fossil corals experienced slightly longer years (400 days). And, since I believe the Flood caused the fossils, then it would follow (in MY thinking) that the Flood event shortened the year in some way.Anyway, it is the fact that I think the earth moved in response to the fountain ejecting the water and land, that I don't think the heat becomes a major issue. However, I do believe there would have been a tremendous amount of heat in the local area around this "fountain." And by "local" I could consider several hundred miles to be local.You had said earlier that such an event would have literally shattered the earth (IIRC). That is exactly what proponents of this idea say.Actually, this may change some of our earlier discussion, because, by this idea, a certain portion of water may have left the earth system entirely (blown OUT of orbit).--Jason

Exactly how much bigger than the current Earth was this crust? The amount of material you would need to eject to alter Earth's orbit or rotation is enormous. Remember that the "current" crust is like the skin on an apple compared to the rest of the Earth.

Hi nuggin, Well, that's hard to say, of course. At least for me. But, it may help that I am considering "two" crusts. The oceanic crust and the coninental crust. I don't know how justified I am in thinking like that, though.Pretty much whereever you see ocean, as I understand it, this "theoretical" crust would have been, but ON the water. The continents that exist today, "theoretically," are the remnants of that original crust..and the continents, too, would have been ON the water (floating...sort of...but not exactly). Here is a link to Walt Brown's online book at the page where he starts to explain how he thinks the original crust was.--Jason

In my OP I said: But now as I've re-read a section of Walt Brown's book I find: --Jason

ah.. Walt Brown..THE END.

Well, I already know that evolutionists disagree with Walt Brown's ideas quite thoroughly.Still, I am interested in seeing the idea of heat examined. The tremendous energy of such a fountain...would it all turn to heat? Would a portion of it turn to heat? Would most of it remain kinetic? Would the earth move in response to such a fountain?I know I'm asking people to suspend all their "problems" with Walt Brown's hydroplate theory...just to focus on one or two issues.Many may not wish to do that...and I completely understand. A few, Rahvin and Nuggin, for instance, may enjoy the discussion...at least somewhat.--Jason

Nuggin,Actually, I would think that any amount of material ejected out of orbit would have SOME effect on the earth's rotation or orbit...even if only by an imperceptible amount.Is that incorrect?--Jason

Only if the water doesn't fall back to Earth. If the water goes up, but then comes back down, there's no net change in the Earth's position.It's like the proverbial cartoon of the man in the sailboat, trying to push it along by blowing in his own sails. If you're dropping a significant mass of water onto the Earth's atmosphere and surface, then heat does indeed become a major issue. Well, depending on how many fountains, that could indeed be the entire surface of the Earth, could it not?

In the sense of a permanent alteration, yes, it's incorrect. The Earth is in a stable bound state orbit under a central force (Solar gravitation). For such an orbit, small perturbations lead to small oscillations about the equilibrium orbit - they don't change the orbital parameters that determine the shape of the orbit.Recall that the Earth is constantly subject to small perturbations (relative to the Sun's gravity) due to the changing relative positions of other planets, but this doesn't cause permanent changes to the orbit. Any reactive effect of the sort you're appealing to would be orders of magnitude lower even than these.

No. The amount of material it would need to eject to have any influence, let alone the kind of enfluence he's suggesting, would be immense.We often think of the area we live on being think and heavy, because we are incomparison so small.But even if the entire surface of the Earth were covered with a three mile thick crust covering all the oceans, I doubt that a jet of this material would have anywhere near the kind of effect he suggests.Further, maybe this is explained better in his book, for the jet to have an effect, it would have to be consistantly on the same side. That is to say that all the material would have to leave from the same side of the Earth for it to change Earth's orbit. If the planet were rotating, the jet couldn't "push" us an any one direction. But that contradicts his idea that the jet changed Earth's rotation. If the jet effected Earth's rotation, it couldn't effect it's orbit.And, how is it that the materials from many different places on the Earth (Pacific and Atlantic oceans let's say) all shot out in the same direction?So much of the Earth is covered in water, if you were to say that there was a single starting point for the jet, at some point, so much would have been ejected that that starting point would cover half the surface.Seems like a neat theory for a psuedo-sci-fi-religious text, but there's no really basis for it in practical physics

re: SOME effect.From a strictly mathematical perspective - yes.However, I liken it to a guy throwing tennis balls out the window of an SUV. No matter how many tennis balls he throws, no matter how hard he throws them, he's not changing the direction of the car in any significant way.

But if the car was in space, or somewhere else that was frictionless, he could move the SUV in a significant way.NASA has a deep-space probe with an electric-plasma engine so weak that were you to hold one in your hand and ramp it up to full power, you'd feel a force equivalent to the weight of about $2.50 in quarters. In the frictionless environment of deep space you can accellerate a probe about the mass of an SUV to about 90,000 meters per second. But you have to burn the engine for something like 16,000 hours to attain that speed.In other words, if you had enough tennis balls to toss, you could indeed push your SUV out among the stars. Now, this ridiculous flood model? Personally I think we're getting ahead of ourselves. How does the water shoot up into space if it has to push 2/3's of the planet's crust along with it? If it's under that kind of pressure, how did it stay trapped under the Earth in the first place? You can't store pressure in liquids, which are incompressible.